Blog

In his most recent column for Demolition Hub, RVA’s MD Richard Vann looks at when it’s right to say no to a demolition assignment. If you missed the article, catch up below, or read it in full here on page 96.

No matter how extensive your demolition planning techniques, you never truly know what’s around the corner. And with multiple variables at play, it’s impossible to control one single, specific route map. It would be naive to think this is the case. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be prepared for different outcomes.

As part of a regular feature for Demolition Hub, Richard Vann recently imparted must-know insight on this very topic. Here, he explores why scenario planning is crucial when managing large-scale demolition projects – providing the knowledge and agility to react when the unexpected happens, while keeping safety, costs, and timelines at the forefront.

Taking control of uncertainties in demolition

Demolition is a complex, often unpredictable process – one that involves far more than simply knocking down structures. Unlike construction, where precise plans are drawn up from blueprints and materials, demolition projects are full of unknowns. From structural complexities and outdated designs to hazardous substances that pose risks to human health, many of these may only become apparent once the work begins.

This is why feasibility and option studies are such powerful tools in our industry. They allow us to consider the different paths a project might take, each with its own variables and potential challenges, to anticipate different outcomes and create contingencies for each path. From the exploration of different asset divestment options and methodologies to resource planning and EHS considerations, this type of scenario planning empowers clients with intel, supported by evidence-based recommendations, to make informed decisions at every stage. 

Such studies are even more value-adding when accompanied by live, adjustable spreadsheets that adapt financial projects as external factors evolve. With a more dynamic approach, teams can confidently navigate any disruption without losing sight of the project’s end goal.

Building flexibility into demolition execution

Even with a comprehensive schedule of work in place, backed by a proficient project team equipped to execute the methodologies agreed, a plan should always remain flexible. Here’s why:

Every project holds surprises

Demolition projects, by their very nature, uncover unanticipated challenges all the time. And as the saying goes – you don’t know what you don’t know. So how can you plan for everything? And why would you execute every planning exercise in utmost detail if you aren’t yet clear on exactly what the detail will be?

Demolition doesn’t follow a blueprint

If you build a house, a quantity surveyor can use a design to calculate the quantity and type of materials required, as well as a project timeline, with a significant degree of accuracy. Even with this blank slate, unexpected challenges may arise along the way – so imagine the complexities when dealing with decades-old infrastructure where documentation is incomplete, inaccurate, or often nonexistent.

Complexity magnifies uncertainty

Deconstructing an asset the size of a power station, which has stood for more than 60 years, brings a whole new level of complexity. Drawings are often incomplete – if not missing altogether – and the people who operated the plant may no longer be available to provide site-specific knowledge. Educated assumptions must therefore be made until surveys can be concluded and the structure is brought to a known state. 

Planning is a living process

Structures and scenarios constantly change, so planning must remain dynamic at every stage of the demolition, adapting to developments as they arise. Planning only stops when the asset has been brought safely to the ground and prepared for its next phase, whether it’s repurposed or mothballed for future use.

Mindset is as critical as the plan

Mindset matters almost as much as the quality of the initial plan itself. You can’t take your eye off the ball, as you don’t know what tomorrow will bring. And the ongoing progress and evolution of the plan should not – and cannot – remain the responsibility of just one party.

Collaboration reduces risk

At RVA Group, we’ve long talked about the importance of a tripartite alliance between a client, contractor, and an independent consultant like RVA. For a start, nobody knows everything. A contractor may be able to prove the capabilities of a new machine that could help complete the project quicker and safer, for instance. Or there may be advanced waste management experience that would strengthen the environmental credentials of a methodology.

Failing to include all three parties at the decision-making table increases project risk. In one instance, a client engaged RVA to draft a job specification, before terminating our involvement when the contractor was appointed. The client took the programme forward without ongoing impartial project management support, and there were two major incidents on site. 

Assumptions can undermine success

Some operators bypass independent advice altogether, relying on presumptions instead of evidence. But without detailed surveys, for instance, how can a contractor provide accurate quotes? Does the client understand the supply chain’s capacity or anticipate programme delays? Have isolation strategies been designed to ensure the safety of all stakeholders? And what about resale opportunities for dismantled assets versus the scrap market? The planning considerations, of course, go on and on, but comprehensive planning answers a myriad of questions like these.

Prepare now or pay later

To organisations rationalising their operations or mothballing a redundant site to limit their liability, demolition may seem like a straightforward task. A nuisance event to move past quickly. But this mindset invites trouble. Cutting corners in planning means you’re gambling on what lies ahead – and it’s better to prepare for the unexpected than to pay the price later.
Seeking trusted scenario planning expertise to improve the efficiency, safety, and cost effectiveness of your project? Talk to our experts today.

When conducting a decommissioning survey, more information doesn’t always equal better outcomes. In the latest instalment of his regular Demolition Hub feature, our managing director Richard Vann argues that with the right approach, a ‘less is more’ philosophy can transform project safety, efficiency, and cost control for the better.

What is a decommissioning survey and why does it matter?

From power plants to chemical facilities, when a complex industrial site reaches the end of its operational life, you can’t go in blind. This is where a decommissioning survey comes in, telling you what’s safe, what could present risks, and which materials, residues, and structural quirks the site holds. Ultimately, the role of this process is to gather the data needed to make the decommissioning exercise safe, compliant, efficient, and cost-effective.

At this stage, the instinct might be to gather every piece of information possible. This paints a more comprehensive picture and improves project outcomes, right? In reality, it can have the opposite effect. Gathering too much, or the wrong kind of data, can overwhelm decision-making, obscure real safety issues, waste resources, and complicate an already complex scope of work. 

Taking a ‘less is more’ approach – focusing surveys on complete, accurate, and genuinely relevant information – is therefore crucial. And it lets contractors and engineers approach each phase with confidence, knowing they’re armed with exactly what they need, when they need it. In other words, it’s about aiming for precision, rather than overload.

But what does this look like in practice?

Prioritising the HSE regime

The primary goal of a decommissioning survey is to maintain a stringent health, safety, and environment (HSE) regime. Gathering a flood of data on irrelevant risks won’t help here. Instead, you should identify the exact hazards that matter most to the plant in question, and target them in the survey. By zeroing in on specific HSE issues impacting the project, contractors can develop safe systems and best practices for subsequent work packages, ensuring that safety is woven into the project’s fabric from the start. From project managers to on-the-ground engineers, limiting guesswork translates into safer outcomes for everyone.

Exposing information gaps

One of the biggest advantages of a targeted survey is that it exposes information gaps that could lead to liabilities if overlooked. But don’t rely solely on data. To uncover critical issues that may be otherwise overlooked, the knowledge of operators who have run and maintained the plant for decades becomes invaluable. These individuals possess site-specific insights that can help identify potential hazards or residues that may not be documented elsewhere. So, by leveraging their expertise during the survey process, we can address knowledge gaps before they become liabilities, ensuring no significant risks are left unexamined.

Harnessing fit-for-purpose data 

Every decommissioning project is different, and technical surveys should reflect that. A one-size-fits-all approach is not only inefficient, it can also lead to misunderstandings and severely overlooked risks. Consider a chemical facility where specific hazardous materials have been used over the years, for example; a blanket survey may fail to address unique handling and disposal requirements, leading to potentially dangerous situations down the line. When survey data aligns with the unique needs of a project, you get smarter, safer, and more efficient outcomes from start to finish. At this stage, it’s about being as dynamic and adaptable as the decommissioning projects themselves, mitigating unnecessary data distractions in the process.

Keeping budgets and tenders achievable

Managing budgets and tender submissions can feel like a balancing act. The challenge lies in accurately predicting costs amid the uncertainties that come with dismantling complex industrial sites. When surveys are overloaded with irrelevant data, it can lead to inflated budgets and unrealistic tender prices, resulting in confusion and potential project overruns. With more precise, targeted data from the outset, we can gain clearer insights into the real costs involved, helping project managers craft more accurate budgets and establish deliverable tender prices, reducing financial surprises further along in the project. 

Precisely roadmapping risks

Perhaps the most important part of a decommissioning survey is thoroughly identifying and recording every risk and residue. More than tick-box documentation, this step is about translating hazards into straightforward language that can be planned around, without ambiguity. A comprehensive, precise risk assessment avoids assumptions and establishes a clear roadmap for every project stage, because nothing should be left to chance – especially where human lives are concerned.

The essence of strategic simplicity 

Ultimately, clarity and relevance aren’t just preferences during the survey process – they are essential to ensuring safety, boosting compliance, streamlining decision-making, and keeping budgets in check. In a field fraught with complexity, this ‘less is more’ approach can often be the key to safeguarding success at every stage. Crucially, this doesn’t mean doing the bare minimum – far from it. It requires deeper consideration and strategic thinking to determine which information truly matters. But once pinned down, this pays dividends in the long run.

Keen to get your next project out of first gear safely, efficiently, and with costs in firm focus? Ask our experts about our specialist decommissioning and demolition expertise, trusted by leading names including BASF, INEOS, and ENGIE, to name just a few.